Michael P., a minor, by and through his mother, Elizabeth A., and Elizabeth A., individually v. East Stroudsburg Area School District

Summary

The memorandum addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case arising from a disabled student's injuries while exiting a school bus. The court held that genuine disputes of material fact regarding the school district's knowledge of the student's propensity to jump and whether he jumped or fell precluded summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and negligence claims. The court also found a factual dispute as to whether the bus driver's operation of the bus doors contributed to the injury for purposes of Pennsylvania's vehicle-liability exception to governmental immunity.

Holdings

1. Neither party was entitled to summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact remained concerning whether the District knew or should have known that Michael had a propensity to jump from the bus stairs and whether Michael actually jumped or fell.
2. A plaintiff seeking compensatory damages under section 504 or the ADA must prove intentional discrimination, which may be established under a deliberate-indifference standard requiring knowledge that a federally protected right was substantially likely to be violated and failure to act despite that knowledge.
3. Neither party was entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable factfinder could determine that the bus driver's operation of the bus doors contributed to Michael's injuries, while a factfinder could also determine that the operation of the doors played no role.

Questions Presented

1. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on the section 504 Rehabilitation Act and Title II ADA claims where material factual disputes existed concerning the District's knowledge of Michael's propensity to jump and the circumstances of his injury.
2. Whether Pennsylvania's vehicle-liability exception to governmental immunity could support the negligence claim where the bus driver's operation of the bus doors may have contributed to Michael's injuries.
3. Whether the negligence claim could be resolved on summary judgment when material facts remained disputed concerning whether the injury arose from operation of the bus.

Disposition

other